Should Information Be Free?

I was into the promise of free info via cyberspace in the late 80s, and it has delivered greatly. The difference is humungus from then and now.

But it seems like bad discrimination to ask, for 'all' information has different values to different people. The ideals of freedom tend to cover a spectrum between a non-consequential type of nihilism asserting [strike]thongs[/strike] things have no value, and a consequential utopianism where value is irrelevant.... but reality instead seems to be strung out between them, depending on the demand, accessibility and attributes if the thing. Each person asserts their own values on things as measures of affordances of avoidance, so the problem seems to be the only thing that is 'all' is the category itself. In that regard then, I'd say no, 'all' information shouldn't be free to access, at 'any' amount by 'anyone' or thing at 'any' time. 

Should all information be free to 'me', he'll yea! But that would be greedy, selfish and unfair so.....

I'd say lawful society mediates this tension to balance demands for the greater good. Since the scale of that task is well beyond the scope of any power (other then dictatorships, oppressive regimes, cults etc) the provision of it needs to happen at the level if the consumer/participant to assert balance between the first hand experiences as much as parasitical practical, hence the Court system. Precedents get set, legislation established, and society either moves forward or backwards. To measure that movement is equally broad, but as population increases it seems logical values will shrink as resources are distributed and so maybe it's natural for increasing democracies to tend to nihilism, forcing governments to become more controlling to limit the harmful results of that shift. A solution might be to get more resources probably, but given that is dangerous people probably distract themselves with other sorts of information to create new landscapes of value, ie the information age.

I would hate it if the marketplace was the only way to access information though, for that would be like going backwards to when it was harder and more expensive to create sources of information.

Creative/intellectual property should only be free by consent of the owner, and personal information, probably the same, but all information that doesn't fit into those two boxes should probably be free. And while we are talking about this, why the hell do we have to pay for internet access? It's not like it's physically taxing or laborious to push a damn button. But maybe I just don't understand how it works.

I think that information must be free for personal usage and cost money if you want to use it in your own projects. For example, it should be free just to listen to the music on your phone, but you need to pay for it to the performer if you want to use it on your YouTube video, for example.

Should the information concerning the inherent qualities and defining parameters of said information be free? What is free? What is what? Why is what? What is why?
¿PROPORCIONAR RESPUESTAS INTELECTUALES EN LA MEDIA RUTA A PREGUNTAS MENOS SIGNIFICATIVAS MEJORARÁ SU PROPIO VALOR?
I think not.

我的屁股很癢
Translate these wise words, and you will know the truth.

Rex wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Information should be free but profiting from it should be restricted to those who purchase a license.

What does that mean.

When I was young, if you wanted to make 3D computer games you pretty much needed a game engine. Problem was it cost thousands of dollars to license it so it was very restrictive who could use that "information" and build on that platform in order to create their own game. Now, if you want to make games you can use Unity. Unity is like a dream come true for many people, including myself. It's free to use but if you make over $100,000 in a year from using it (funding or revenue) then you need a commercial license. So basically, they're saying you can use their "information" but if using it allows you to make enough money that you can afford a commercial license then that's when you pay. This means when they're able to help people achieve success then those successful developers help support the company in return. And aside from that they have an asset store where they probably make money from small transactions of 3rd party devs selling components and 3d modesls and stuff to each other.

But basically, money doesn't have to be a barrier to entry if you use this type of model. Information could be made free through a "personal license" and then people could buy a commercial license in order to support the developer/inventor if they become successful using that information.

And it's smart for Unity too because now you have x amount of developers, learning and using their platform which helps them compete against established engines that have since put out their own free licenses to stay competitive. In 2015, Unreal Engine 4 went free for personal use, showing how effective the free model is.

Rainbow Firefly wrote: I think that information must be free for personal usage and cost money if you want to use it in your own projects. For example, it should be free just to listen to the music on your phone, but you need to pay for it to the performer if you want to use it on your YouTube video, for example.

I don't think music should be free unless its only a part of the song, like the instrumentals or the beat. Things that can be used in other things, to make completed works of art. And then if you use it you should pay based on how much it contributed to profit being made from that completed work. So basically I think you should be able to use something in an effort to make money and pay everyone if its successful. They lose nothing if you fail. However, if its a complete work it should be paid for. Either $1/track or some kind of subscription service.

Now if something is paid for with advertising (like on the radio) that's different but in 2019 its easy to listen without ads. The bottom line is that you always want to make sure that whoever made the music is compensated so that they can keep making music.

Is music and info different ?

Truthfully, my library has as many books as we do songs. Some one has to pay the bills right ?
Where does that balance kick in?

Edit: the music industry thrives on the masses - does the info industry do the same thing? Would be kinna different if they did like songs ...

I would suggest that libraries are basically free sources of almost limitless information, but I suppose we have to consider the taxes that keep them open and the fact that you have to have an address to check anything out (which means paying for your home.)

I have to say I agree with the notion that the people who have spent their lives studying and researching and working to assemble information in an accessible format should be compensated for their efforts. People sacrifice precious resources, time and money and energy, to share their knowledge; it only makes sense that they be compensated for that in some way.

I can't speak for everywhere, but I live in California and over the years I have become fairly close to a lot of my previous teachers and professors from different points in my educational experience. These are distributors of information, instructors in critical thinking, formative curators of the minds of American youth, and they struggle WAY more to support themselves and their families than I believe they should. There have been a few educator strikes as a result of the issues concerning their compensation. School admins make so much money, and they often have little if any interaction with the students. I don't think this is fair at all, and that's purely looking at the issues with education systems. The wider world is going to have even wider issues, so ultimately I think information comes with a price whether we like it or not. If people want to learn and better themselves there is going to be a measure of sacrifice in that pursuit, because odds are somebody else has or is going to sacrifice something of their own just to make that information accessible.

Tmattos93 wrote: I would suggest that libraries are basically free sources of almost limitless information, but I suppose we have to consider the taxes that keep them open and the fact that you have to have an address to check anything out (which means paying for your home.)

I have to say I agree with the notion that the people who have spent their lives studying and researching and working to assemble information in an accessible format should be compensated for their efforts. People sacrifice precious resources, time and money and energy, to share their knowledge; it only makes sense that they be compensated for that in some way.

I can't speak for everywhere, but I live in California and over the years I have become fairly close to a lot of my previous teachers and professors from different points in my educational experience. These are distributors of information, instructors in critical thinking, formative curators of the minds of American youth, and they struggle WAY more to support themselves and their families than I believe they should. There have been a few educator strikes as a result of the issues concerning their compensation. School admins make so much money, and they often have little if any interaction with the students. I don't think this is fair at all, and that's purely looking at the issues with education systems. The wider world is going to have even wider issues, so ultimately I think information comes with a price whether we like it or not. If people want to learn and better themselves there is going to be a measure of sacrifice in that pursuit, because odds are somebody else has or is going to sacrifice something of their own just to make that information accessible.

Don't libraries buy their books?

"Libraries offer authors two things. They can buy their books, which nets the author some royalties. They can also offer exposure, allowing the author to gain a new audience who might buy their books the next time rather than just borrowing them. For libraries to survive, authors must keep creating books."

So basically, an author is getting compensated. It's not really free. And its the author's choice. They're not forced into it so basically they only do it if they think its a benefit in the long run. This is why a lot of books go to library after sales have slowed down just like movies go to video and eventually to TV. TV pays one time and millions of people get to watch it. Same thing.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Is music and info different ?

Truthfully, my library has as many books as we do songs. Some one has to pay the bills right ?
Where does that balance kick in?

Edit: the music industry thrives on the masses - does the info industry do the same thing? Would be kinna different if they did like songs ...

information doesn't have to be a complete product. It could be, for example, the design of a chair. But its not a chair. You'd have to make the chair. Making the chair costs money. You got materials and labor. But the design is done once. So why not collect 200 different chair designs and pay each designer every time you sell a chair? But if you want to build the chair for yourself then it could be free. How many people are going to make their own chair? Not many. Which means the designer is going to be compensated as long as their design becomes an actual product that sells.

In the case of music, you have "parts" and then you have whole products. To me this is difference; whether or not its a finished product. The finished product isn't necessarily made by the same person who makes the "parts". All the parts deserve compensation based on the success they are contributing to; thus inspiring more content creation. But people should have to buy music just like they have to buy a chair. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it loses value.

If photographers couldn't sell images we would probably still have lots of images but not photographers might not survive. Just like with the print industry itself; magazines and newspapers... the threat to them is very real because the information they put into these printed materials is basically free online. So now they're trying to catch up and monetize it some way so they can keep reporting news. That's the danger when "finished products" aren't paid for or accurately compensated. Because then, even if you make some money, its not enough to cover payroll for all your reporters who make all that content possible.

It's called intellectual property for a reason. Someone put some amount of work into creating an idea and making it accessible. Their patent, copyright, trademark, etc. is theirs on that basis and can be sold/licensed like any other good.

Musicians very often will buy small sound bites to include in a song, and there's a thriving industry for producers, gig artists, and sample pack writers. As much as you think music or content is "free" on YouTube, etc. the internet ad revenue model is just much more insidious in adding middlemen who reduce the take home for the actual content creators.

Sorry your book is loaned out at the moment

I remember in 1995 finding that NASA Dryden (now Armstrong) provided most all its flight testing research papers online for free. My poor old 28kbps connection was not enjoying d/l engineering diagrams of aircraft but it was worth the 30min wait for each one!!

People who work to increase scientific knowledge deserve compensation, i dont think anyones disputing that. But people have to make decisions and our decisions have consequences, both for ourselves and for society. The more relevant the information is to mental health, relationships, or navigating wisely through the myriad cultural and political issues being wrestled with by contemporary society, the more important it is for people to have access to that information.

It might be perfectly justifiable to put protections on the specific technical details of the latest Ferrari engine but should we handle that kind of information the same way that we handle breakthroughs on, say, addiction or trauma research and treatment? What if a new treatment emerges for alcoholism which has a success rate of 80% after seven years? Thats really good. Such a modality would save many lives.

What if we discover a therapy that is genuinely effective at treating the PTSD of war veterans? Or the PRSD of survivors of date-rape or child molestation? Or what if we learn to objectively identify the traits which make for being a good husband and father and/or a good wife and mother?
Isn't there both an ethical and an economically pragmatic argument to be made that this sort of information should be made a available to those who need it even if they cant afford to pay for it? That it should simply be given to those for whom it is relevant?

Adder wrote: Sorry your book is loaned out at the moment
I remember in 1995 finding that NASA Dryden (now Armstrong) provided most all its flight testing research papers online for free. My poor old 28kbps connection was not enjoying d/l engineering diagrams of aircraft but it was worth the 30min wait for each one!!

I just wanted to quote you to say that this is one of the coolest things ever. Thank you for sharing that.

At the same time you have to play define the categories (or set up criteria/process for deciding on individual cases) if you want to make buckets for what's in the public's interest or not. The idea is interesting, but raises quite a few questions I can't satisfactorily answer.

If research is beneficial to the public, but can't be used directly by then (e.g. new method for manufacturing flu vaccines), is it justifiable for the government to buy out that research even though it will only be used by a small number of groups/people who would've bought access anyway?

If say there is research in North Korea that's beneficial to the public, how would Tibet access and financially compensate for it?

Also how do we evaluate the financial compensation of researchers/publishers whose content is essentially nationalized?

Rex wrote: At the same time you have to play define the categories (or set up criteria/process for deciding on individual cases) if you want to make buckets for what's in the public's interest or not. The idea is interesting, but raises quite a few questions I can't satisfactorily answer.

If research is beneficial to the public, but can't be used directly by then (e.g. new method for manufacturing flu vaccines), is it justifiable for the government to buy out that research even though it will only be used by a small number of groups/people who would've bought access anyway?

If say there is research in North Korea that's beneficial to the public, how would Tibet access and financially compensate for it?

Also how do we evaluate the financial compensation of researchers/publishers whose content is essentially nationalized?

In my view, you license the information as free for personal use. If someone could buy the ingredients for the vaccine and mix them in their own home they should be able to. However, if they're synthesizing and manufacturing a vaccine based on this research then they're going to profit. And if they're going to profit then they should have to pay. If they're not going to profit then it should be treated as "non-commercial" or fair use.

In the case of research, I was suggesting that it could be paid by R&D budgets of universities which then is supported by the tax base. And foreign tax payers can license the results of that research through their state or local government which then goes back to the governments supporting the schools. It could come back as a budget surplus and used to lower taxes or paid out to tax payers in the form of a refund similar to oil in Alaska. This is basically the same thing as subsides for farmers. You can simply subsidize information in order to make it free for citizens.

What if a team of researchers is comprised of individuals from different countries? Should each state involved be subsidizing their respective researcher from each of the countries' respective taxes? What of the profits, should each country profit in proportion to the quantity and quality of contributors they provided for the collaboration? So the suggestion seems to entail that the different countries both cooperate with and compete against one another in the very same project. I'm not sure that sounds very healthy... Besides, how do we force each government involved to play by the same rules without compromizing their individual sovereignty in so doing? And if one of them refuses, must it be excluded from the global scientific enterprise? Is there any reason this might be either a necessary or a desirable thing?

Why is this such a debate guys?
Someone please fill me in, I don't understand.

Reading the OP is what I'd recommend. It elaborates on what is meant by the question which can, sometimes, help illuminate why the answer isn't as obvious and universal as reading the title only might have one think. There is also the rest of the thread with both short and elaborate answer considering the question in the OP from different angles.
Since you ask, though, what "this" do you feel is there a debate about exactly, and do you think anything can be gained from entertaining it?

In short, my honest answer would have to be, I'm not really sure, I don't really know, and finally, a resounding I don't really care (in the sense that I recognize that my opinion on the subject does not change the existing reality of said subject).
However, I do not say this to seem impertinent at all, I truly am fascinated by all of your opinions on the matter.
To put it simply, I believe I am thoroughly out of my element on the subject, so naturally my opinion would be of little value.
But please, carry on.